Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 454

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Considering spatial and temporal scale in landscape‐genetic studies of gene flow

ANDERSON, COREY DEVIN, EPPERSON, BRYAN K., FORTIN, MARIE‐JOSÉE, HOLDEREGGER, ROLF, JAMES, PATRICK M. A., ROSENBERG, MICHAEL S., SCRIBNER, KIM T., SPEAR, STEPHEN·2010·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Landscape features exist at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and these naturally affect spatial genetic structure and our ability to make inferences about gene flow. This article discusses how decisions about sampling of genotypes (including choices about analytical methods and genetic markers) should be driven by the scale of spatial genetic structure, the time frame that landscape features have existed in their current state, and all aspects of a species’ life history. Researchers should use caution when making inferences about gene flow, especially when the spatial extent of the study area is limited. The scale of sampling of the landscape introduces different features that may affect gene flow. Sampling grain should be smaller than the average home‐range size or dispersal distance of the study organism and, for raster data, existing research suggests that simplifying the thematic resolution into discrete classes may result in low power to detect effects on gene flow. Therefore, the methods used to characterize the landscape between sampling sites may be a primary determinant for the spatial scale at which analytical results are applicable, and the use of only one sampling scale for a particular statistical method may lead researchers to overlook important factors affecting gene flow. The particular analytical technique used to correlate landscape data and genetic data may also influence results; common landscape‐genetic methods may not be suitable for all study systems, particularly when the rate of landscape change is faster than can be resolved by common molecular markers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04757.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
ANDERSON, C. D., EPPERSON, B. K., FORTIN, M., HOLDEREGGER, R., JAMES, P. M. A., ROSENBERG, M. S., SCRIBNER, K. T., & SPEAR, S.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-13
Volume
19
Issue
17
Pages
3565-3575
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W1792456730
Cited by
454
References
2
FWCI
18.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.